MOD Business Plan 2012-2015
Thread Starter
MOD Business Plan 2012-2015
Anyone interested in the current thinking on what will happen in UK Defence for the next 10-15 years? Read on http://www.mod.uk/NR/rdonlyres/E230F...12_2015_p1.pdf 
Hot off the press dated 31 May 12...
LJ
Hot off the press dated 31 May 12...
LJ
Last edited by Lima Juliet; 6th Jun 2012 at 21:55.
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: .
Posts: 2,173
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
well, the plans bolloxed before its begun
From page 2
"Our priorities for 2012/2013 reflect this vision. They are:
To succeed in Afghanistan – the main effort for the MOD.........."
Succeed at what?
From page 2
"Our priorities for 2012/2013 reflect this vision. They are:
To succeed in Afghanistan – the main effort for the MOD.........."
Succeed at what?
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: A galaxy far far away
Posts: 109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Priority 2: To continue to fulfil (sic) our standing commitments
Priority 2!
And my dictionary says 'fulfil' is the US version of fulfill. So who's commitments are we fulfiling exactly? And why aint it bleedin Priority 1 FFS. That document has to qualify as the most politically driven piece of merde since SDSR.
Oh Christ, I've become one of the crusty old moaners.
sorry
p.s the first person to quote Clauswitz gets a kick in the Hoden
Priority 2!
And my dictionary says 'fulfil' is the US version of fulfill. So who's commitments are we fulfiling exactly? And why aint it bleedin Priority 1 FFS. That document has to qualify as the most politically driven piece of merde since SDSR.
Oh Christ, I've become one of the crusty old moaners.
sorry
p.s the first person to quote Clauswitz gets a kick in the Hoden
You have to love it when the priorities are all focussed on delivering savings, reports, restructuring, retiring platforms, reduce the number of Army personnel by around 20,000, etc. Whatever happened to 'capability' and 'operational effectiveness'?
I know it's a 'business plan' (since when were the Armed Forces businesses?), but instead of (for example) 'Deliver A400M Steering Committee annual review', shouldn't it be 'Deliver A400M'?
Insead of 'Take forward work to replace unprotected support vehicles with protected ones', why not 'Replace unprotected support vehicles with protected ones'. 'Take forward work' could mean simply deciding what colour to paint it.
There are some instances of 'Introduce xxx into service', which is good. Let's hope the openning words, 'This plan will be updated annually' doesn't mean what I think it means...
I know it's a 'business plan' (since when were the Armed Forces businesses?), but instead of (for example) 'Deliver A400M Steering Committee annual review', shouldn't it be 'Deliver A400M'?
Insead of 'Take forward work to replace unprotected support vehicles with protected ones', why not 'Replace unprotected support vehicles with protected ones'. 'Take forward work' could mean simply deciding what colour to paint it.
There are some instances of 'Introduce xxx into service', which is good. Let's hope the openning words, 'This plan will be updated annually' doesn't mean what I think it means...
Courtney
Quite right.
When they say;
What vehicles are they talking about? For example, the much vaunted Snatch was deemed unfit for purpose in N. Ireland about 14 years ago and the subject of an endorsed replacement programme, since cancelled (FNIPV). The very existence of this programme (ISD 2008) betrayed the lies when we were told it was fit for purpose in Iraq etc.
Also interesting to see the number of fraud cases reported, but not the action taken. Perhaps related to the Ministerial decisions that instructing someone to commit fraud is NOT an offence, but a refusal to commit fraud IS an offence. Must be very confusing for MoD plod.
Quite right.
When they say;
'Take forward work to replace unprotected support vehicles with protected ones'
Also interesting to see the number of fraud cases reported, but not the action taken. Perhaps related to the Ministerial decisions that instructing someone to commit fraud is NOT an offence, but a refusal to commit fraud IS an offence. Must be very confusing for MoD plod.
Just what I was wondering, Tuc. As our youngest is off to AFG later this year as a relatively new Lt, I find the fact that they are at least PLANNING to take things forward very comforting.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oxon
Age: 66
Posts: 1,942
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Taking things forward would appear to also include scaling down the Army by 20,000 over the next 10 years which is just being announced on the BBC
Last edited by Seldomfitforpurpose; 7th Jun 2012 at 11:26.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Middle England
Posts: 546
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'Taking work forward' merely means that the MOD can't be taken to task for not delivering capability, upgrade or whatever! 'Taking work forward' can be as little as having another 'management meeting'. 
For the Army, greater use of "Reserves and private contractors" - does that equal the Atholl Highlanders or perhaps an even more irregular 'Popski's Private Army'?
New Employment Model
Future Accomodation Plan
Future Pension Scheme
Harmony Changes
Redundancy
All just some of the reasons I left and only now coming into the public/wider service domain.
Future Accomodation Plan
Future Pension Scheme
Harmony Changes
Redundancy
All just some of the reasons I left and only now coming into the public/wider service domain.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 932
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ignoring the flimsy nature of the document, crassness of the decisions and the large number of mgtspk w@nk words, I saw this:
18 FE GR4s in 2015
2 Sqns? Thought that the whole 40 had survived to 2018?
S41
18 FE GR4s in 2015
2 Sqns? Thought that the whole 40 had survived to 2018?
S41
Is there much in the public domain on the "Combined Joint Expeditionary Force" to be set up with France?
EDIT ....some high level stuff :
Britain and France plan joint expeditionary force and carrier group | Atlantic Council
Material Strategy - no dates.....
Lots of guff on reducing water use and greenhouse gas emissions with suppliers - its sad that this stuff achieves equal billing against 'real' outputs.
EDIT ....some high level stuff :
Britain and France plan joint expeditionary force and carrier group | Atlantic Council
Material Strategy - no dates.....
Lots of guff on reducing water use and greenhouse gas emissions with suppliers - its sad that this stuff achieves equal billing against 'real' outputs.
Last edited by JFZ90; 7th Jun 2012 at 21:39.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Borderline England
Posts: 211
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pheasant
Never mind Merlin Mk4 to the RN - that's old news, you win, we're getting over it.
How about the
"switch to the STOVL variant of JCA"
"achieve Lightning II IOC for land-based operations"
"achieve Lightning II IOC for maritime based operations"
All within the RAF section of the document. Is that enough to make you weep ?
How about the
"switch to the STOVL variant of JCA"
"achieve Lightning II IOC for land-based operations"
"achieve Lightning II IOC for maritime based operations"
All within the RAF section of the document. Is that enough to make you weep ?
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It looks as if someone has quickly cobbled together a number of slides from various PowerPoints so the politicians have something to release
If that was done by anyone with more than a couple of GCSE's they should be run off
If that was done by anyone with more than a couple of GCSE's they should be run off